DRS continues in NZ-SA Tests after crisis talks

The Decision Review System (DRS) will be in use for the remaining two Test matches between New Zealand and South Africa after a possible pull out from technology providers Virtual Eye was prevented on Sunday.

Ian Taylor, creator of Virtual Eye ball-tracking was so "disappointed" by comments made by Jacques Kallis and Doug Bracewell at the end of the third day's play that he arrived at the ground on Sunday morning ready to withdraw his services. After a meeting with the ICC's general manager, Dave Richardson, New Zealand Cricket and Sky Television officials, Taylor was persuaded to stay on and will continue to supply ball-tracking for the rest of the series.

Both Kallis and Bracewell expressed concerns about one of the more talked about elements of the DRS system - ball-tracking technology. The pair said members of their teams were not entirely convinced of its accuracy.

Taylor, who founded Animated Research Ltd, the company that sells DRS services, including ball-tracking to Sky TV, said the criticism levelled at his product compelled him to cancel the service immediately. "My view was that let's draw a line in the sand. If the players feel the way that Jacques says they do, let's take the stance that we shouldn't be imposing our technology. We've put it there to help the players, and to hopefully get better decision making. If the players don't want it, I totally understand that, it shouldn't be imposed on them."

Taylor revealed that initially even he did not want to use it when DRS was first proposed. "We were opposed to using the technology for DRS. We didn't think a tool that was made for television should decide the results of matches," he said. "When DRS was proposed, the first thing we said was not to use the predictive path."

The eventual decision to use it was explained frankly by Richardson. "The bottom line is that they are going to be more consistent and more accurate than the human eye, that is just natural," he said. "So when Jacques Kallis says that 99% of the players don't support it, I don't think he's correct."

Kallis said that there were "plenty" of concerns about ball-tracking in the South African camp and indicated that players from all around the world were not convinced of how correct it can be. "I don't think there are any guys that are 100% sure that that thing is as accurate as they want to make it out to be. They keep saying it but I'm not so sure and I think 99% of cricketers will say that."

It was that statement which incensed Taylor, because he saw it as coming from a place of ignorance. "I just thought it was really unfortunate that somebody should go off in a press conference with those sort of comments when we have a standing invitation to come and have a look at the system," Taylor said, confirming that, to date, none of the players have accepted.

Richardson was in the country by coincidence on scheduled visits to New Zealand and Australia about technology and attended the morning's meeting between Taylor and the broadcasters. He reassured Taylor that the ball-tracking is not an undesirable part of the DRS and that the ICC firmly backs it as one of the essential ingredients of the system. "We [the ICC] are 100% satisfied that the ball-tracking provided as accurate a result as could have been achieved and the correct result." He said. "As far as we're concerned, the majority of players are in favour of using DRS with the technology used."

The ICC continues to face questions on the implementation of the DRS, with ball-tracking being the most concentrated target of skepticism over the system. Richardson said continued monitoring has satisfied the ICC that it is as precise as it needs to be. "We've been assessing or reviewing those ball-trackings on a continuous basis for the last three or four years and are confident in saying they are more than 97% reliable, and are accurate to the degree of accuracy that is required," Richardson said.

Both captains however, voiced their support for the DRS and emphasised that they would like to continue using it. "It would be disappointing if the review system wasn't there," Ross Taylor said. His opposite number, Graeme Smith, stressed that technology has a role to play in the modern game. "It's become a key part of the game now. It's done for the game what it needs to, which is to take out the really bad decisions."

@ Chris - simple: add every ball bowled in a match into a live model. The predicted path would then be an average accumulated over the course of a match. The maths geeks could have great fun building in data about old ball vs. new, wearing / turning / lowering pitches... hours of fun!

anuradha_d
on March 12, 2012, 15:39 GMT

We told you......twitter from Srinivasan :)

on March 12, 2012, 14:38 GMT

The decision that raised eyebrows used ball tracking to determine that the ball had pitched marginally outside Rudolph's leg stump. But this can be established with older technology beyond any doubt -a line superimposed onto the pitch. Why rely on ball tracking when their is actual footage of where the ball pitched or struck.This should at least be employed whilst their is doubt about ball tracking! Not just players are expressing doubt -Alleem Dar was shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders, and the creator of the system has even admitted to shortcomings. I can't see ball tracking ever attaining the wonderful definitiveness of hot-spot, but actual footage comes close, and as Jeremy Bradshaw explains (comment number 1 above) lets have the data on ball tracking accuracy and incorporate this appropriately into the decision making process!

on March 12, 2012, 13:42 GMT

probably not that easy, bowling a 1000 balls at the waca would be alot different to bowling 1000 balls on a 5th day hyderabad

on March 12, 2012, 12:41 GMT

Jeremy is right - though I would think it might not be so easy to calibrate, you may atleast find where the error rate is acceptable - say x inches after bounce and y inches before stump.

on March 12, 2012, 11:26 GMT

Surely its easy to prove accuracy - bowl 1000s of balls at unguarded stumps, give DRS the data up to a certain point (eg. 3m from the stumps), ask it to predict the path, compare that with the actual path. Change the 3m to 2m, 4m, etc to calibrate the margin of error at various interception points.

ReverseSweepIndia
on March 12, 2012, 11:06 GMT

IMO, issue is not with DRS, but with its implementation. Why we should rely on predictive path? Keep it simple. Howlers are: Batsmen edging-not given out, given out-not edged, edged-given lbw, given lbw-pitched outside (just see the pitch map, not predictive path). Also need to change it the way that giving LBW should depends only on umpire and batsman should only be allowed to contest the decision for pitched outside leg, or edged to pad. Whole issue is due to how ball behaves after pitching, programmers can not do that, batsman even the likes of Kallis, Tendulakr, Dravid or Pontings or Sanga can not do it correctly everytime (if they do they will never get dismissed lol). So takee the predictive path out, take the powers out of fielding side to contest umpire decision for giving not-out to batsman, system can work wonders

on March 12, 2012, 10:13 GMT

Batsmen like Kallis and Tendulkar have enjoyed the benefit of the doubt their whole careers and that doubt has been total, provided they stuck their leg far enough down the pitch or the ball wasn't hitting middle stump half way up when they were caught on the crease. The predictive path of DRS has reduced the margin of doubt, umpires are being bolder in their decisions, and batsmen naturally don't like it! It seems to me that the vast majority of complaints are from batsmen (who are coming to realise that all three stumps must be defended WITH THE BAT) rather than bowlers. Even Kallis admits that the technology works well enough to eliminate the shockers. It seems easy enough to test the predictive path, and to compare Hawk Eye with Virtual Eye - where are the tests? Furthermore, the technology could be tested exhaustively against individual umpires.
Bring on technology that will spot a bowler chucking during live play - bye bye doosra!

northumbriannomad
on March 12, 2012, 9:57 GMT

Nobody is saying that it's 100% perfect. It's there to help, not enforce decisions. Cricketers are not philosophers. They should just get on with their jobs.

StaalBurgher
on March 12, 2012, 9:46 GMT

@baskar_guha - Uhh, no. Kallis still wants it used he is just agreeing that it might not be as accurate as claimed. Big difference. India are the only people insisting on not using something that is at least slightly better than nothing.

on March 14, 2012, 12:12 GMT

@ Chris - simple: add every ball bowled in a match into a live model. The predicted path would then be an average accumulated over the course of a match. The maths geeks could have great fun building in data about old ball vs. new, wearing / turning / lowering pitches... hours of fun!

anuradha_d
on March 12, 2012, 15:39 GMT

We told you......twitter from Srinivasan :)

on March 12, 2012, 14:38 GMT

The decision that raised eyebrows used ball tracking to determine that the ball had pitched marginally outside Rudolph's leg stump. But this can be established with older technology beyond any doubt -a line superimposed onto the pitch. Why rely on ball tracking when their is actual footage of where the ball pitched or struck.This should at least be employed whilst their is doubt about ball tracking! Not just players are expressing doubt -Alleem Dar was shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders, and the creator of the system has even admitted to shortcomings. I can't see ball tracking ever attaining the wonderful definitiveness of hot-spot, but actual footage comes close, and as Jeremy Bradshaw explains (comment number 1 above) lets have the data on ball tracking accuracy and incorporate this appropriately into the decision making process!

on March 12, 2012, 13:42 GMT

probably not that easy, bowling a 1000 balls at the waca would be alot different to bowling 1000 balls on a 5th day hyderabad

on March 12, 2012, 12:41 GMT

Jeremy is right - though I would think it might not be so easy to calibrate, you may atleast find where the error rate is acceptable - say x inches after bounce and y inches before stump.

on March 12, 2012, 11:26 GMT

Surely its easy to prove accuracy - bowl 1000s of balls at unguarded stumps, give DRS the data up to a certain point (eg. 3m from the stumps), ask it to predict the path, compare that with the actual path. Change the 3m to 2m, 4m, etc to calibrate the margin of error at various interception points.

ReverseSweepIndia
on March 12, 2012, 11:06 GMT

IMO, issue is not with DRS, but with its implementation. Why we should rely on predictive path? Keep it simple. Howlers are: Batsmen edging-not given out, given out-not edged, edged-given lbw, given lbw-pitched outside (just see the pitch map, not predictive path). Also need to change it the way that giving LBW should depends only on umpire and batsman should only be allowed to contest the decision for pitched outside leg, or edged to pad. Whole issue is due to how ball behaves after pitching, programmers can not do that, batsman even the likes of Kallis, Tendulakr, Dravid or Pontings or Sanga can not do it correctly everytime (if they do they will never get dismissed lol). So takee the predictive path out, take the powers out of fielding side to contest umpire decision for giving not-out to batsman, system can work wonders

on March 12, 2012, 10:13 GMT

Batsmen like Kallis and Tendulkar have enjoyed the benefit of the doubt their whole careers and that doubt has been total, provided they stuck their leg far enough down the pitch or the ball wasn't hitting middle stump half way up when they were caught on the crease. The predictive path of DRS has reduced the margin of doubt, umpires are being bolder in their decisions, and batsmen naturally don't like it! It seems to me that the vast majority of complaints are from batsmen (who are coming to realise that all three stumps must be defended WITH THE BAT) rather than bowlers. Even Kallis admits that the technology works well enough to eliminate the shockers. It seems easy enough to test the predictive path, and to compare Hawk Eye with Virtual Eye - where are the tests? Furthermore, the technology could be tested exhaustively against individual umpires.
Bring on technology that will spot a bowler chucking during live play - bye bye doosra!

northumbriannomad
on March 12, 2012, 9:57 GMT

Nobody is saying that it's 100% perfect. It's there to help, not enforce decisions. Cricketers are not philosophers. They should just get on with their jobs.

StaalBurgher
on March 12, 2012, 9:46 GMT

@baskar_guha - Uhh, no. Kallis still wants it used he is just agreeing that it might not be as accurate as claimed. Big difference. India are the only people insisting on not using something that is at least slightly better than nothing.

RedThing
on March 12, 2012, 9:43 GMT

I am an old traditionalist but the DRS adds to the TV spectacle if not the game on the ground. A wider margin for error could be applied. For instance a ball just breathing on top of leg bail should not be confirmed as umpire's call and if given a decision like Aleem Dar's decision on the Rudolph lbw which was cutting a good part of the leg stump shaded area should be confirmed out. Note the players have become secondary to the spectators by taking the big bucks as opposed to a saturday club game where the players are the only important people. The same applies to all professional sport.

umvarma
on March 12, 2012, 9:40 GMT

Some people (including Malediction) has to understand that Kallis is more qualified to talk on ball prediction than even some of the ICC experts. No qualified physicist or aerodynamics expert will believe in image analysis as a basis for cricket ball path prediction (when it is swinging and spinning). Cricket ball physics is much more complicated than that. Even a simple search on web for "sports ball aerodynamics" or "sports ball CFD" gives many research papers trying to explain all kinds of erratic movements of sports balls (cricket/golf/soccer) with complicated wind tunnel experiments and highly time consuming HPC computations. I am with technology in every aspect of life including cricket, but not salesmanship. Here, people keep throwing some random numbers (95% accurate, 97% accurate, how did these guys got these numbers?) without showing their validation and verification methods or scientific proofs and start whining when people question it.

on March 12, 2012, 9:30 GMT

At the end both captains say it's needed. Ball tracking technology gets rid of over 80% of umpire errors. It's not perfect - NOTHING in life on this earth is perfect, and to ask for perfection is a nonsense idea. To ask for "much better" - and to get it - well that's fine, and that's what DRS AND predictive tracking is. What needs to change is the way it's interprested. Less than 50% ball contact should always go to the batsman no matter who made the review and no matter what the umpires original decision. We've all seen the ball actually hit the stumps and the bails not come off. It's no-where near as rare an occurance as those outside cricket might think. So let's have some margin for the batsmen, "in favour of the batsman" has been the rule since cricket rules were set up, let's get back to that.

SomersetJord
on March 12, 2012, 9:26 GMT

I have always thought that 'Virtual eye' was pretty shaky, I remember seeing it in the 2011 ashes and sometimes when they paused it at the moment of impact on the pad the red ball tracker image was clearly in a different place to the actual ball on the screen, sometimes by at least an inch or more which is pivotal to the decisions.
The original incarnation of the ball tracking which was devised by Hawk-eye is significantly better and does not seem as cheap and shoddy as virtual eye or any of the other systems. They should just use the best system globally which I believe is clearly Hawk-eye, as they do in tennis.

baskar_guha
on March 12, 2012, 9:07 GMT

Now that a non-Indian player of considerable repute has weighed in against aspects of the DRS, maybe its blind supporters will open their real eyes. ICC should have used any and all DRS technology only after it had been validated by independent and uncompromising expert evaluators. Many people who blindly supported the DRS now look like fools, amongst them many coaches, players, commentators, journalists, ex-umpires, and assorted national boards. No one is against technology to help the sport but let's do it with objectivity and caution not with all the hoopla and rush of blood.

on March 12, 2012, 7:40 GMT

Well if the ball tracking has issues that can be understood, but they should still use hot spot ... It has proven to be of great use and is very reliable. The laws of physics dictate via thermodynamics! Very simple... Where as Ball tracking is.... COMPLICATED!!! Oh man... ball tracking does need a review but I think the actual review system idea is good.

Fast_Track_Bully
on March 12, 2012, 7:19 GMT

anti-DRS?? that must be BCCI... they hired others too...isn't it?

orangtan
on March 12, 2012, 6:30 GMT

So, now that it is not just the much-maligned Indians who are commenting about the lack of clothes on the Emperor, the Emperor sees fit to take himself away, much like the rich boy who takes his bat away because he wants to bat all the time.

maddy20
on March 12, 2012, 6:09 GMT

What a dramatic turn of events! When Sachin Tendulkar opposed the DRS and informed the BCCI about his doubts on technology such as virtual eye, both Sachin and BCCI were vilified by the lot especially those who have a gala time mudslinging anything that has to do with INdia. Even most of the cricket boards including SA and NZ, the teams involved hear have vehemently opposed BCCI and had ICC make it mandatory. One would expect that a man who had played test cricket for 22 years, knows what he is talking about, especially since he has over 33,000 runs in international cricket!

bobagorof
on March 12, 2012, 5:39 GMT

A simple test would be to run the tracker over a replay of a batsman being bowled, but only feed the DRS information up to the point where it meets the batsman. Then see what it says. Or we could just listen to cricketers with no education in physics, who are misjudging the line of the ball in the first place, and who are looking at the ball coming from below them, as to whether a 3rd party can tell where it's going to go. What need of Umpires, then?

Rahul_78
on March 12, 2012, 5:34 GMT

"We were opposed to using the technology for DRS. We didn't think a tool that was made for television should decide the results of matches" - Ian Taylor, creator of Virtual Eye ball-tracking. Why is there such a big debate on it after all? Why is such technology which doesnt have complete assurance from its creators being allowed to overrule the decision made by on field umpires? When a cricketer of pedigree of Kallis who is by far one of the most experienced cricketer playing the game and thankfully not from India who have been conceived as having a anti-technology bias has made his point against the technology it should warrant some merits.

azzaman333
on March 12, 2012, 4:10 GMT

Technology is never going to be 100% perfect, because it's made by imperfect humans. The point of the DRS is to reduce the margin of error, not eliminate it completely since that's impossible.

Zahidsaltin
on March 12, 2012, 2:59 GMT

Since that Said Ajmal LBW appeal against Sachin Tandulkar in the worldcup semifinal, I lost my trust in DRS ball tracking. Their are various youtube entries which prove the calculated path wrong. Even the naked eye observed the ball heading to the stumps. No, I dont trust it any more but yes it can be consistent and can correct some of those obviously wrong decisions with big margin of mistake, which some bad umpires make

johnathonjosephs
on March 12, 2012, 2:03 GMT

It really is ridiculous. Ball tracking is very accurate (deemed to be 95% accurate). What may seem to Kallis as going down leg, might just be clipping leg stump. Anyways, the decision he was upset about is not really valid. Forget about all the semantics of technology, and think this way. Before UDRS we were blaming "bad umpiring". Lets face it, Simon Tauffel and Asaud Rauf aren't going to umpire every single game being played between the 9 nations. You're gonna get some bad umpiring. They make mistakes a lot, and UDRS is just a means to reduce that amount. Statistically, no system can be completely error free. One can only reduce the number of errors. UDRS is just going to be blamed and if UDRS is out, then bad umpiring will be the blame. What would you rather have, the Aus/India tour with all those bad umpiring or a series like this with one or two 50/50 decisions not going the player's way?

Lermy
on March 11, 2012, 23:38 GMT

I recall one ball tracking prediction shown during the recent NZ series in Australia which couldn't possibly have been correct. It showed the ball hitting the batsman's pad on one side, yet the impact seemed clearly to be about 4 inches across on the other side of the pad. This was verified by the fact that the ball bounced away after impact in the opposite direction to what it should have, had the Virtual Eye or Hawkeye track been correct. After seeing that, I always take these predictions with a pinch of salt. It appears that in at least some cases there is the possibility of significant error. I would be quite happy to do away with the DRS, but only on the condition that the umpires aren't crucified by self righteous TV commentators who get to watch numerous slo-mo replays. Maybe we should do away with umpires and let the infallible TV commentators make the call. Then there would never be any mistakes made (yeah right!!!).

gdalvi
on March 11, 2012, 23:34 GMT

Same old excuses by DRS diehards- like nothing is 100% correct at beginning. I wonder if same people would have dared to fly on airplanes if they were 95% reliable when first introduced and would have accepted that there is 5% chance they would die and said that is OK since they technology will only get better.
I bet these people would have waited till the tech is 100% accurate before using it, even though the airplane travel reduced time to destination by huge margin.
Someone said that Kallis is not a physicist and hence not qualified to answer. I bet these simpletons also think than in any airplane design, engineers just do all design work and test pilots just risk their lives flying any contraception designed by them. Wrong - test pilots provide key feedback on performance of the airplane based on their experience and it is engineers job to not only have to listen to them but also make necessary changes. Here too, the top cricketers must decide if tech is valid, not the programmer

duncanmoo
on March 11, 2012, 20:09 GMT

And don't for a moment think this is something that poped into Kallis's head while he was talking; I recon the team had a chat, perhaps even chatted to the NZ camp and SA decided to get Kallis to moan about DRS to really give the statement some clout. Where India were unfortunate was they complained after losing so it sounded like excuses for losing, but that is not the case here.

Nuxxy
on March 11, 2012, 16:14 GMT

People obviously are making generalisations about what Kallis said. He didn't say that 99% of players think the Virtual Eye is always dodgy. He was mostly referring to a specific replay. And everyone has seen the odd replay where the path seems unnatural. 99% of cricketers are not confident that every DRS replay is always accurate. Is anyone? And what qualification does he have? 16 years of cricket at the highest level. He knows how the ball behaves.

2.14istherunrate
on March 11, 2012, 15:18 GMT

The problem with the case of the appeal against Rudolph seems to be that the bowler is 'certain of where the ball pitched. Surely if the replay is played over the pitch map then either one is arguing that the stumps have been moved or that the stump to stump line has a kink in it. surely it is cut dried whether a ball pitched in line or not and this is not a predictive path matter but a pst path-the ball has been bowled and its line recorded. B'well says that a ball swinging in from outside legstump could not hit the stumps, but that depends on the balls path in the first place and how wide the bowler was on the crease. This is hardly evidence enough to scrap a system which may be fallible but is less fallible than simply using the human eye. getting the best answer is not the same as getting the perfect answer, and i would suggest that using a micrometer may be a step too far. anyway nice to see NumeroUno India is still on his soapbox!!!

Front-Foot-Lunge
on March 11, 2012, 14:58 GMT

Well for 2-3 years it's been the BCCI whinging about it, and we then of course had the imfamous whinging from the Ozzies last Ashes (although that's not the first time they've tried to blame everyone else except their own performance). Note carefully how England's players have recognised the slight adjustment in the playing of the game, got their noses down and got on with it, not threatening to withdraw from a series because of it. Which is yet another example of good sportsmanship and leadership from England to go with leading the world over the spot fixing scandal, and Strauss's diplomacy in calming down relations between two countries on particular over it.

gudolerhum
on March 11, 2012, 14:42 GMT

It is totally absurd for Jacques Kallis to make a sweeping, unsubstantiated comment to the press that "99 per cent of players do not like the DRS". He is enitled to his opinion but I am sure he nor any other player complains when the DRS gives them 'a second chance', it is only when they are not satisfied with a particular decision that this happens. This is 'normal' for most players, no one wnats to be given out, we all hated it. But get real, DRS has helped the decision making and it will continue to do so as the technology improves. Grow up Jacques, you are one of the games finest.

Patrick_
on March 11, 2012, 14:37 GMT

Wow, so when one gets to see the dubious decision himself the accuracy of the ball tracking technology is questioned. First it was an England team in subcontinent and now it is the SA and NZ teams. No wonder most of these doubts are caused when there is a spinner involved. The first time this technology was used in the India's tour to Sri Lanka, Indian players were not satisfied with the ball tracking lines and were doubtful, and to add to their woes SL used the reviews brilliantly while India had no idea how to use them. India opposed the DRS ever since and it is good to see other teams also coming up with such doubts. Now all those who thrashed BCCI for their 'arrogance', could you please open your eyes ?

ballonbat
on March 11, 2012, 12:40 GMT

Malediction, your analogies are inappropriate. Kallis has played cricket for about 30 years - top level for 15 or so. He doesn't need physics or image analysis to know where his off stump is and to predict where the ball is going to go. You might have noticed how often competent batsmen are happy to shoulder arms to a ball that comes perilously close to their stumps. It's called judgement. Sometimes they get it wrong. But cricketers are processing all sorts of information simultaneously - the behaviour of the pitch, conditions overhead, performance of previous balls, the condition of the pitch in front of them (ie where the bumps and cracks are), wind direction and speed ... The DRS technology is basing its predictions on a fraction of that info. So, who is to say who is correct? Batsman, non-striker, wickie, umpire, in-fielders or DRS? All have their opinions, some instinctive, some a mixture of instinctive, experience & knowledge, some analytical. Kallis is allowed his opinion too.

IndiaNumeroUno
on March 11, 2012, 12:10 GMT

I just need to add that ECB has lost its legs long time back and now is just a "subsidiary" of SkySports... it does whatever Sky asks them to do. BCCI is better suited to lead cricket as its more powerful than a TV company and lesser of the evils!

robheinen
on March 11, 2012, 11:09 GMT

Agree with Kallis and Bracewell. The introduction of all this technology only relocates the border for whingers - who - incidently, will always find something to whinge about. The next disadvantage is that, ultimately, it will raise the ticket prices for cricket, which we don't need at this moment in time. I, for one, never wanted the fancy stadiums and all the technology etc. It all took the fun out of cricket, as a pair of commentators pointed out during the NZ v. SA test. The magic is gone. Let the investors in the game of cricket admit that their investments were not so well thought through and let them take their loss. Leave cricket to the cricketers and let the businessmen take their business elsewhere. Let's be friends, but let's also part ways.

screamingeagle
on March 11, 2012, 10:57 GMT

I see that it has swung from being absolutely perfect to being a work in progress. Strange that no one seems to think what BCCI stated long back is being vindicated now. India hating is a favourite pastime for many here, but give credit where it is due. The system is not really something anyone would want to fall back on. After all, it is not really a great idea to spend money and replace human errors with machine errors?

londondoc
on March 11, 2012, 10:52 GMT

I wonder what Messers Holding, Hussain and all the othercricket pundits who revelled in India (BCCI) bashing on their DRS stance have to say about this. I guess they might soon allege that Kallis and Bracewell are playing in in the IPL so have to toe the BCCI diktat!! Dont think the bashers have an iota of decency to regret their derisive and derogatroy comments they made on air in the India- England series, everytime the Indians got a rough decision due to the lack of DRS.

md111
on March 11, 2012, 10:48 GMT

PureTom certainly seems to be right here is that is meant to be for the howler. Ones coming to mind that would have been game changes from a while back now where the Michael Clarke at in the Ashes that was given not out but he got a massive inside edge on which was out and Cook who was given out LBW but got a massive edge. LBWs apart from a full yorker on middle given not out are always going to cause some rancour. Kallis obviously read the article on Cricinfo a couple of days back about him being never mentioned with Ponting or Tendulkar recently as he was always quietly going about his work perhaps DRS is his way to get notcied!

CaughtAndBowled
on March 11, 2012, 10:23 GMT

When Indians complaint, every one was up in their arms. Simply blaming Indian players and board.Eventually branded as anti technology etc

Now certain teams(You know what I mean here) complain then a proper process starts.. Talks take place.. Things analysed.. Wow!! Guess what? No one talks about BCCI and Indians players stand from the beginning.

Glad that something being done to the white elephant in the same room.

IndiaNumeroUno
on March 11, 2012, 9:43 GMT

What a circus!!!

BCCI was right about this all the time and the other boards - though late in understanding - are now agreeing with it.. of course personal ego's mean they will never acknowledge that BCCI is right.. anyway!... ICC need to get a grip on this technology and standardise it before stuffing it down the throat of international cricket.

Pathetic!

.DjT.
on March 11, 2012, 9:36 GMT

If the issue here is accuracy, why haven't they done some real testing? Design some measurable tests in all sorts of real world conditions(seaming, swinging etc) and find out it's actual limits rather than just leaving everyone to speculate.

nevillekent
on March 11, 2012, 8:22 GMT

"We were opposed to using the technology for DRS. We didn't think a tool that was made for television should decide the results of matches." So what is the point of your technology Mr Taylor? To allow TV commentators to spend air time to shoot umpires down when they make a mistake? Some very disappointing comments all around.

HawK89
on March 11, 2012, 7:20 GMT

A lot of people don't pick up the late movement of the ball before impact, So they become confused at the end result. When you watch the reply in slow-motion, you can see why the prediction went as it did. Players like to get wickets based on how loud they shout. When offered to review it, they decide against it anyway...

Malediction
on March 11, 2012, 7:20 GMT

Way to go Kallis. Maybe just stick to playing cricket. I don't ask my mechanic to operate on me, nor my vet to do my taxes. So cricketers are ignorant of the finer points of the physics and image analysis? Shocking.

PureTom
on March 11, 2012, 7:04 GMT

The problem here, I think, is that DRS is supposed to remove the howlers or bad decisions, yet almost all reviews seem to be for LBW decisions which are often very close calls. DRS was never intended to be the decider of close calls, but has become so and so people become nit-picky about the degree of accuracy. If the ball is just missing leg stump on a given LBW is that a howler or just a poor call? We used to accept that as part of the game not too long ago. I don't think DRS path prediction is 100% either but it's a lot better than anything else available.

Sinhaya
on March 11, 2012, 6:37 GMT

UDRS has to be made mandatory. UDRS is better than on field umpiring howlers. Yes it is not yet 100% but nothing will be 100% perfect at the beginning. It will be 100% perfect after a while like any other object.

katsunn
on March 11, 2012, 6:03 GMT

This guy is just a whiny kid. Just because some people complain that dusnt mean he needs to cry like a baby. he has to be resolute. Its like apple pulling out of the iphone market all together just because a couple of customers say that it has one single flaw

No featured comments at the moment.

katsunn
on March 11, 2012, 6:03 GMT

This guy is just a whiny kid. Just because some people complain that dusnt mean he needs to cry like a baby. he has to be resolute. Its like apple pulling out of the iphone market all together just because a couple of customers say that it has one single flaw

Sinhaya
on March 11, 2012, 6:37 GMT

UDRS has to be made mandatory. UDRS is better than on field umpiring howlers. Yes it is not yet 100% but nothing will be 100% perfect at the beginning. It will be 100% perfect after a while like any other object.

PureTom
on March 11, 2012, 7:04 GMT

The problem here, I think, is that DRS is supposed to remove the howlers or bad decisions, yet almost all reviews seem to be for LBW decisions which are often very close calls. DRS was never intended to be the decider of close calls, but has become so and so people become nit-picky about the degree of accuracy. If the ball is just missing leg stump on a given LBW is that a howler or just a poor call? We used to accept that as part of the game not too long ago. I don't think DRS path prediction is 100% either but it's a lot better than anything else available.

Malediction
on March 11, 2012, 7:20 GMT

Way to go Kallis. Maybe just stick to playing cricket. I don't ask my mechanic to operate on me, nor my vet to do my taxes. So cricketers are ignorant of the finer points of the physics and image analysis? Shocking.

HawK89
on March 11, 2012, 7:20 GMT

A lot of people don't pick up the late movement of the ball before impact, So they become confused at the end result. When you watch the reply in slow-motion, you can see why the prediction went as it did. Players like to get wickets based on how loud they shout. When offered to review it, they decide against it anyway...

nevillekent
on March 11, 2012, 8:22 GMT

"We were opposed to using the technology for DRS. We didn't think a tool that was made for television should decide the results of matches." So what is the point of your technology Mr Taylor? To allow TV commentators to spend air time to shoot umpires down when they make a mistake? Some very disappointing comments all around.

.DjT.
on March 11, 2012, 9:36 GMT

If the issue here is accuracy, why haven't they done some real testing? Design some measurable tests in all sorts of real world conditions(seaming, swinging etc) and find out it's actual limits rather than just leaving everyone to speculate.

IndiaNumeroUno
on March 11, 2012, 9:43 GMT

What a circus!!!

BCCI was right about this all the time and the other boards - though late in understanding - are now agreeing with it.. of course personal ego's mean they will never acknowledge that BCCI is right.. anyway!... ICC need to get a grip on this technology and standardise it before stuffing it down the throat of international cricket.

Pathetic!

CaughtAndBowled
on March 11, 2012, 10:23 GMT

When Indians complaint, every one was up in their arms. Simply blaming Indian players and board.Eventually branded as anti technology etc

Now certain teams(You know what I mean here) complain then a proper process starts.. Talks take place.. Things analysed.. Wow!! Guess what? No one talks about BCCI and Indians players stand from the beginning.

Glad that something being done to the white elephant in the same room.

md111
on March 11, 2012, 10:48 GMT

PureTom certainly seems to be right here is that is meant to be for the howler. Ones coming to mind that would have been game changes from a while back now where the Michael Clarke at in the Ashes that was given not out but he got a massive inside edge on which was out and Cook who was given out LBW but got a massive edge. LBWs apart from a full yorker on middle given not out are always going to cause some rancour. Kallis obviously read the article on Cricinfo a couple of days back about him being never mentioned with Ponting or Tendulkar recently as he was always quietly going about his work perhaps DRS is his way to get notcied!